Posted on 10/02/2003 7:47:17 AM PDT by Wolfstar
And he was wrong because Saddam didn't give up anything before the war. So if he was wrong about that...
Interesting that this bellicose model of Joseph C. Wilson comes a.) after his trip to Niger and, yet, b.) precedes "What I Didn't Find In Africa" on the NYT op-ed page.
So, in January, 2003 Wilson just knew Saddam had WMD and was all for kicking butt in Iraq. By, by May, 2003, he's breakfasting with Nicholas Kristof and speaking on "deep background" about the lack of a firm foundation for Bush's SOTU.
Why caused this 180, I wonder...
One thing we can't overlook in this regard: Wilson is plugged into a.) the Saudis (Rock Creek Corp, Middle East Institute, etc) and b.) the French (ex-wife, Jacqueline, may have been DGSE).
The French may use him. The Saudis may own him.
I suspect it was that he had to wait to make sure Bush made the reference to Africa in his SOTU. If Bush had omitted the Africa reference, Wilson's handlers would've had to come up with another angle of attack instead.
I have Lexis Nexis at work. I am going to do some looking in the a.m. When did he go to Niger? And then his op-ed came out July 8, 2003 right?
A distinct possibility. A reference that they would believe was founded on the forged documents -- then in U.S. hands, but not yet proven fake -- right?
A baited trap...
I'm beginning to agree with you and Wolfstar. This thing is not only bigger than Joe & Val Play Politics, it may be even bigger than Democrats vs George W. Bush. Chuckie and the boys might be mere tools, themselves...
Going to bed. Then a long day on the road tomorrow. I'll check back in tomorrow night.
I need to log off, so I'll check back tomorrow.
What drives me crazy about this is the fact that Bush did NOT lie, he quoted British intelligence! GRRRRR!
Okie, I remember that some Congress critter (perhaps Rangel, but don't hold me to it) came out within a very short time of the President's State of the Union address that year and ranted about the mention of the Niger-Iraq connection in the SOTU. In late 2002, there were some documents traced to Italy (again, if memory serves) that were supposedly shown to be forgeries. I think that's how the notion that the British intel was based on forgeries got started.
The true international origins of the full saga are quite murky and trace to at least the fall of 2002. Anyway, I get the impression that Wilson -- either alone or working in concert with congressional Dims like Rangel -- cooked up Wilson's faux outrage shortly after the SOTU address. Wilson and Dim-friendly reporters carried it forward in the manner outlined on this thread.
I think when Novak wrote his piece, that was just so much gravy to the Wilson cadre. At the time, they switched almost on a dime from faux outrage over the SOTU and "misuse" of Wilson's Niger "report," to faux outrage over the "outing" of poor missy Valerie. They got enough traction out of that to get Patrick Fitzgerald appointed.
I'm not entirely sure Novak walked into this mess innocently, either. He may, indeed, have blundered into the story as he describes. However, he's never particularly warmed to the GWB presidency. He says he was cautioned not to use ValP's name, but he did it anyway. So it is at least possible that Novak deliberately aided the Wilson crowd in their attempt to set up the President.
"Eyespy," before you do your Lexis Nexis search, if you take some time to read the article, page 1, top of this thread, you'll get the complete outline.
bump for AM read
And, okie, it is indeed much larger than just the Wilson angle. We must not lose sight of the dust up in Britain that led to an investigation about forged docs and the guy who allegedly committed suicide. The forged docs story touched three key allies in the coalition that supported toppling Hussein: Italy, the UK and the U.S. The Wilson saga is but a domestic thread in a tangled international web.
JANUARY 6, 2003 : (CHB ARTICLE : DEMOCRAT PLANS TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT : EFFORT TO BE LED BY DICK GEBHARDT) Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within the party tell Capitol Hill Blue. A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of Bush and his party. The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt. - "Dems Plan to Undermine America to Beat Bush," by Doug Thompson, CapitolHillBlue, January 6, 2003
JANUARY 8, 2003 : (SPIES : SUSAN LINDHAUER DELIVERED A LETTER TO A US GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WHICH INDICATED HER ACCESS TO MEMBERS OF SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME) On Jan. 8, 2003, prosecutors said, Lindauer tried to influence U.S. foreign policy by delivering to the home of a U.S. government official a letter in which she conveyed her access to and contacts with members of Saddam's regime. The official was not identified in the indictment.
To build on that line of thought, I'd add that I think it also touches on Middle Eastern nations relevant to US-UK operations in Iraq. A number of the intelligence community figures who've been attacking Bush (e.g. Bob Baer) have a background with the Clinton CIA's operations in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. The CIA station in Jordan (along with its MI6 counterpart and the MI6-supported Iraqi National Accord, composed of a group of ex-Ba'athists and former members of Saddam's regime) used assets from Jordanian intelligence, which had been penetrated by Saddam's agents. It seems to me there must be a link between the Western intelligence agency factions attacking Bush and Saddam's intelligence network, and it'd be logical to infer the link intersects with the channels used for Oil-for-Food money transfers.
I have some more articles that quote anonymous government officials. I suspect a majority of the quotes are coming from the VIPS folks, those that quote "intelligence officials", etc. Occasionally there are ex-ambassador or ex-envoy quotes that probably came from Wilson. But all the quotes during that early 2003 period that made accusations about pressure from the administration to slant reporting seem to come from the same group of people--McGovern, Thielmann, Lang, the Christisons, etc.
I agree that this is all much larger than Wilson--I think he's being used by these other people and he doesn't even realize it. The Plame outing is just a fortunate event that they're making the most of. I believe the origins of the battle go back to these ex-government workers who make up VIPS and their belief that the driving force of every action of this administration is the "neocon" master plan for Israeli security.
Here's another article to add to the collection:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PIN307A.html
"A senior intelligence official said the agency did not consider the documents revelatory because they contained the same information, from other sources, already in intelligence reports. But in hindsight, the official said, "we failed to see the signals" that would have indicated they were forged.
Another intelligence official said "the documents were such a minor point of analysis for anyone" because the information was not deemed reliable. "
Yes, it would. Excellent observations. We may never get to the bottom of it all, but I think at least the outlines are clear.
Thanks, Wendy. I'm not sure Plame was ever truly "outted" in the true sense of that word. Nevertheless, I think you're right. David Corn did not just happen upon his wild accusations a couple of days after Novak's piece was published. It was Corn's article that actually started the whole tack of trying to pin a national security breach on GWB, Dick Cheney and Rove.
The same groups that fisked Chalabi post haste...
bump
Here's what I don't understand; if she was undercover, which I doubt, and if she had kept her "cover" secret, how on earth was Karl Rove suppose to know she was UNDERCOVER?
Is he just not to EVER mention anybody's name just in case they happen to be in the CIA?
And if he had known she was undercover, was he just not suppose to mention the part about her getting him the job for the trip? Wouldn't that have been great? Wilson could have kept saying Cheney sent him and nobody could have contradicted him, right?
Wilson is upset because Rove said she was fair game; well, she inserted herself into this story, so she certainly is fair game, IMO.
Just like John Kerry said Mary Cheney was fair game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.